White House Asks Supreme Court to Intervene and Remove DC Circuit Court Injunction on Ballroom Complex

The White House has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking for an immediate administrative stay of the DC District Court injunction blocking construction of the Ballroom and Military complex [SEE FILING HERE].

The baseline argument is very solid on several grounds, including standing. A single complaint from a woman who walks by the White House once per month and holds the opinion of the complex as an eyesore is not standing to block the construction. Additionally, several agencies of the Executive Branch stand in support of the construction on presidential security, safety and national security grounds.

[SOURCE]

The structure extends five stories deep into the ground, and is built with hardened concrete, steel, and rebar; protective missile-resistant columns, roofs, and beams; drone proof ceilings and roofs; and bullet, ballistic, and blast-proof glass. … The Project includes bomb shelters, state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities, protective partitioning between all areas of the building, top secret military structures and equipment, military-grade venting, a single integrated air conditioning and heating system, sniper nests, and a drone port on top, elevated by the structure of the ballroom, to protect the White House and surrounding region from aerial attacks — “one of the nation’s largest emerging threats.”

President Trump has shared additional attachments to the filing, via Truth Social:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “In my work with heads of state and foreign ministers, I am frequently hosted in reception facilities that are visually impressive and reflective of the wealth and beauty of the nations I am visiting. In the United States, by contrast, we currently lack the ability to hold large events of a similar magnitude on White House grounds for those same heads of state and foreign dignitaries.

Instead, we must currently host such visits in plastic or canvas tents on the South Lawn with unsafe and unsanitary portable bathrooms and accommodations unbecoming of our national stature…Our foreign counterparts offer premier security arrangements for United States officials. It is imperative that we not only offer the same level of elite security services, but offer the world’s leading capabilities in an efficient manner on grounds over which we exert permanent control … We must obviously seek every reasonable means to mitigate both the more predictable risks, including weather and physical incursions, but also emerging threats … The East Wing Project is essential to that defensive security posture. The Project is absolutely critical not only for the physical safety of guests, but also for advancing our diplomatic relations and the interests and standing of the United States in the world.”

The core of the underground complex is substantially complete, and the injunction serves to make the issues of construction considerably more challenging.  The above ground features including the ballroom itself are paid for with private donations.  The underground system is constructed with government funding.

Jay Clayton, Director of National Intelligence: “The Project is critical for ensuring the White House can serve as a secure location for the gathering of the President, gathering of senior government officials, and gatherings that further the interests of the United States. The Project on the Complex also will improve the level of protection and ability to manage and mitigate threats to the President and senior government officials and will enhance the handling, management, and utilization of IC information, including the conduct of IC-directed support to the Complex.”

President Trump is obviously frustrated with the ridiculous lawfare effort.

“These are the TREASONISTS that brought the suit against the Military Complex. They revealed Top Military Secrets!
 
“The National Trust for Historic Preservation” is a beautiful name, but even their name is fake because when they add the words “in the United States” to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a Governmental Agency, which it is not. In fact, the United States refused to continue funding it in 2005 because they strongly disagreed with their mission and objectives. They are very bad for our Country. They stop many projects that are worthy, and hurt many others. 

In this case, they are trying to stop one that is vital to our National Security, and the Safety of all Presidents of the United States, both current and future, their families, staff, and Cabinet members. They were asked by the United States Military not to bring this suit because of the Top Secret nature of the important facility being built. They were shown detailed plans and specifications of this knitted, unified, and cohesive structure by Top Officers and Leaders in both the Military and Secret Service.

But this did not deter them because they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS, as noted by Democrat Senator John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania. The lower section does not work without the upper section and, likewise, the upper section does not work without the lower. It is all one highly integrated unit.
 
The then President of the National Trust, who brought the case, Carol Quillen, had no background in Historic Preservation, and has been replaced, unanimously, effective immediately. This is similar to her departure from Davidson College, where she was, likewise, dismissed, but the people of our Country are forced to live on with her bad decision, especially that of revealing to everyone, including our enemies throughout the World, the Top Secret Military features of the Building that are already built, and/or under construction, such as the DronePort, which occupies the entire roof.
 
There is absolutely no argument that a woman walking her dog in the vicinity of the White House has STANDING to stop such a desperately needed National Security structure for the people of the United States of America, as it will provide Presidents, current and future, a secure space to do their jobs, especially when she never saw the Building, because it had not risen, and she had no rendering, or pictures of the Building because they, also, were in the formative stages of production.

This woman is not a “walker,” she is an activist, or serial plaintiff, who is involved in much other frivolous litigation throughout the City. In fact, whenever the National Trust files a lawsuit, she seems to be involved. So, she walked at the site of the White House, where there was no Building, and it bothered her, but she also walks in front of all of those other places, where she must also be bothered, and hence, additional court cases? She has no Clearances, or expertise whatsoever, in National Security, Defense, or required protections for the President.

She has absolutely no standing to be involved in this case and, in fact, her name is not even mentioned as a plaintiff in the case! It is this kind of gross and flagrant abuse of our Courts that is exactly why Americans are losing faith in our System of Justice. It is so bad for our Country!” President DONALD J. TRUMP

Eastern District of VA District Judge Enters Stay Order Blocking State Response to DHS Subpoena for Commercial Drivers License Records

The blue states and DC are desperately trying to avoid complying with a Dept of Homeland Security administrative subpoena for the records of their commercial driving license distribution.  In short, the blue states don’t want DHS or the American people to know how many illegal aliens are driving on CDLs.

Eastern District of Virginia Judge Anthony Trenga has just interceded to stop the states from forced compliance. Judge Trenga entered an administrative stay preventing DHS from obtaining roughly 17 million commercial driver’s license records it subpoenaed for immigration enforcement. [Read Administrative Stay Here]

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously issued subpoenas for approximately 17 million commercial driver’s license (CDL) records, which has led to a legal battle involving multiple Democratic run states.

A coalition of 22 blue states is now suing the DHS, claiming that the demand for this sensitive data is part of a broader effort to create a “nationwide surveillance system” and that the DHS lacks legal authority to access such records. The lawsuit argues that the data could jeopardize drivers’ privacy and violate federal privacy laws. {LAWSUIT HERE}

The states are seeking to block the DHS’s access to the records, which include personal information such as names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The coalition argues DHS has no legal authority to demand the truck drivers’ license records and would jeopardize drivers’ privacy if they receive them.

American citizens are not permitted to know who and how many illegal aliens are operating dangerous trucks on the roadways.  The privacy of the illegal aliens is paramount to the safety of the American citizen motorist.

Think about that for a few moments.

All Your Trucking Risks Are Belong To Us!

YAHOO – The dispute centers on the Commercial Driver’s License Information System, known as CDLIS. Congress established it in 1986 under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act to give states a secure way to share information about CDL applicants, chiefly to make sure a driver cannot hold licenses in multiple states or escape a disqualification by crossing a state line. It is operated by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, or AAMVA, a nonprofit whose members are the state licensing agencies, under contract with FMCSA since 1988. The database contains sensitive personal information, including names, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and Social Security numbers, for the roughly 17 million people who hold commercial licenses.

According to the states’ complaint, on August 11, 2026, FMCSA demanded that AAMVA turn over the full database, every driver’s records going back five years, by August 17, or face termination of AAMVA’s federal contracts and more than $10 million in federal funding. The states further allege that the Department of Homeland Security issued a separate immigration-enforcement subpoena to AAMVA for the same records with the same deadline, which the states characterize in their filing as coordinated with FMCSA.

The states also describe a sequence leading up to the demand. AAMVA, caught between the federal demand and the objections of many of its member states, proposed on August 14 to let its board consider an opt-in or opt-out choice, allowing each state to decide whether to authorize the transmission of its own data. According to the complaint, FMCSA rejected that proposal on August 11 as “unacceptable.” Facing the threat of losing its federal contracts, which the states say could shut CDLIS down entirely, AAMVA told the states it would comply and turn over the records on or around August 17. That is what prompted the coalition to file suit on August 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and to seek an emergency order blocking the transfer.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia are named in the suit against DOT, FMCSA, and AAMVA, and a coalition of 22 states and D.C. filed a companion suit against DHS over the parallel subpoena. The participating states include Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, and others, along with Pennsylvania.

The Federal Government’s Position

The Department of Transportation has stated its case forcefully, and it rests on safety and enforcement.

DOT frames the data request as necessary to keep unsafe and unqualified drivers off the road, and specifically to identify commercial drivers who obtained licenses improperly. In its August 13 statement, Secretary Sean Duffy said, “Every administration since 1988 has had access to this basic database, so let’s be clear on what this ridiculous lawsuit is really all about. These radical state AGs want to make it harder for my Department to enforce the rules of the road and easier for dangerous illegal immigrant truck drivers to operate a big rig.” He added, “We will fight this lawsuit tooth and nail to prevent more senseless crashes by unqualified drivers.”

DOT tied the demand to a broader enforcement campaign it has run since an April 2025 executive order on the trucking industry. The department says that effort has revoked more than 30,000 improperly issued commercial licenses, removed nearly 10,000 fraudulent or unqualified CDL training providers from the federal registry, placed more than 26,000 operators out of service under English language proficiency standards, and closed what it calls the non-domiciled CDL loophole. The department has connected the data demand to the August 12, 2025 crash on Florida’s Turnpike, a three-fatality collision that DOT attributes to an undocumented driver operating with an improperly issued license.

DOT’s legal position, as stated in its release, is that AAMVA “is contractually and legally obligated to furnish the requested records at FMCSA’s direction, with federal protection against state-level liability.” In other words, the federal government argues it has always had access to this database, that AAMVA is required to comply with FMCSA’s direction, and that the states cannot hold AAMVA liable for complying.

LEGAL CASE

[…] The states argue that they, not the federal government, own the driver data stored in CDLIS, and that they placed it in the shared system for a specific, limited purpose, checking licensing status across states, under agreements that bar broader disclosure. Their position is that CDLIS was built as a state-to-state information-sharing tool, and that the statute creating it contains no provision allowing the federal government to demand a bulk transfer of all state records as a condition of participation. As Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul put it, “This database was created 40 years ago so states could share information with each other to stop unsafe drivers from operating commercial vehicles, and the federal government’s decision to ransack that database puts the whole system in jeopardy.”

[…] The complaint alleges that several states, including Illinois, California, Maine, and the District of Columbia, have contracts with AAMVA that expressly prohibit disclosure of confidential driver data without the state’s authorization and require compliance with state and federal privacy law. The states say no contracting state has authorized the release, and that the contracts “flatly bar” it. This is the basis for a breach-of-contract claim against AAMVA specifically. (SOURCE)